List Work Scopes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by stating 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds useful error semantics by enumerating common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404) and the scenario for each. This goes beyond the annotation flags and gives agents insight into failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary action, but the contradictory sentences about 'list' vs 'single JSON object' reduce clarity. The endpoint and error-code information are useful, but the mixed messaging means not every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return value, but it fails to do so clearly due to the list/single-object contradiction. It also omits whether the response is paginated and what fields are included. The error-code context is helpful, but the core return semantics are missing or misleading.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters (page, per_page) with descriptions and defaults. The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning or clarify how pagination relates to the returned data, so it contributes no extra value. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is high.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description first says 'Returns a predefined list of work scopes' but then contradicts itself with 'Returns a single JSON object describing the work scope.' This ambiguity makes it unclear whether the tool returns a list or a single resource. The usage guidance ('when you already know which work scope you want') also implies selection, yet the schema only includes pagination parameters, adding further confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a specific use case ('Use this when you already know which work scope you want and need its full field set'), which gives some context for when to call the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, and the guidance may mislead if the tool actually returns all work scopes rather than a single one.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.